# Could anti-healthcare reform rhetoric backfire on the Republicans? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [March 18, 2010, 4:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-anti-healthcare-reform-rhetoric-backfire-on-the-republicans/532899 "2010-03-18T16:05:02Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [March 18, 2010, 9:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-anti-healthcare-reform-rhetoric-backfire-on-the-republicans/532899/41 "2010-03-18T21:48:32Z")
Yeah, but you’re fudging a bit, you’re including those on the left, such as myself, who “oppose” the bill because it doesn’t do enough with those tighty rightys who are tearing our their hair and screaming about socialism. ---
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [March 18, 2010, 9:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-anti-healthcare-reform-rhetoric-backfire-on-the-republicans/532899/42 "2010-03-18T21:53:06Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Yes, each of your examples are hypocrisy. > > Because they all claim to identify a moral wrong, and then the speaker indulges in the very moral wrong he has decried. > > But notice the difference between your statements and the examples I gave. In both of my examples, the objection is not to moral wrongness but to a poor policy, one that is rejected because it will supposedly produce poor results. > > So instead of “Eating animals is wrong!” as a statement, perhaps we might envision: “Eating animals is unhealthy, and so you shouldn’t do it – we can get all the protein we need in more healthy fashion from non-animal sources!” > > “There are only two hot dogs left in the house, and no tofu.” > > “Then I’ll take them, because it’s more unhealthy still to not eat anything.” > > Not hypocritical. > > See the difference? I noticed in the example of health care that the situation is “people shouldn’t get government-supported health care, 'cause it’s a bad idea. Weakens their moral fiber or something.” “Wait, we’re talking about me? Suddenly moral fiber doesn’t feel like such an issue anymore. As long as we’re just talking about me.” To respond to the OP, if facts didn’t get you into an argumentive position, then facts are often ill-positioned to get you out of it. Unless the Rush/Glenn types reversed their rhetoric, that would still be the significant source of opinions for many. ---
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [March 18, 2010, 9:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-anti-healthcare-reform-rhetoric-backfire-on-the-republicans/532899/43 "2010-03-18T21:59:13Z")
> [@Mr\_Smashy](#): > > Not sure what you mean by that, as I’m not currently in government, nor am I a Republican (or even all that conservative). Democrats are in charge of all three branches though. They have the power, the GOP does not… until Nov, when the previously mentioned backlash will probably put a whupass on Dems. > > PS It’s not the GOP that’s holding up the bill, it’s the Dems. In fact, the only thing bipartisan about this bill is the opposition against it. That’s utterly not true. You’ve been told to think that by conservative talking heads. The reason the bill is having trouble is that there is uniform and monolithic opposition from the Republicans. Democrats have a coalition of liberals, moderates and conservatives. No one bill will make all of them happy. Republicans however have decided to walk in lockstep without thinking and consideration. The lack of a single R vote in the Senate is what this is about. Because not only are they refusing to vote for it, they aren’t willing to stand against filibuster either. It’s pure obstructionism. Because of the pure obstructionism the house can’t have a traditional conference and amend the bill, that’s why they’re looking to pass it back without changes and then amend the bill with a patch that can be passed in the Senate with reconciliation. The Deem and Pass thing is so that Dems in tough districts can be insulated from saying they voted for the “Cornhusker Kickback” and other flaws in the Senate bill. They can instead say, no I didn’t, I voted for the fix package. Honestly, repeating mindless Republican talking points like, “In fact, the only thing bipartisan about this bill is the opposition against it” doesn’t do much for your credibility on this issue. ---
**Author:** ![Eonwe](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/eonwe/32/240_2.png) [@Eonwe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Eonwe)\ **Post date:** [March 18, 2010, 10:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-anti-healthcare-reform-rhetoric-backfire-on-the-republicans/532899/44 "2010-03-18T22:16:06Z")
> [@emacknight](#): > > But if you take the bailout, you’re proving that it is a GOOD fiscal policy. If you eat the hotdog you’re proving that it isn’t that unhealthy. So either, the hotdog is unhealthy and you shouldn’t eat it. Or the hotdog is healthy enough to eat and you’re full of shit. I’ve done nothing of the sort. I’ve decided that it’s the best choice I can make for my own benefit in the moment. I haven’t proven anything about the policy of ‘bailouts’ except that it was a policy that I found beneficial at one point. ---
**Author:** ![Cisco](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ccd318/32.png) [@Cisco](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cisco)\ **Post date:** [March 18, 2010, 10:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-anti-healthcare-reform-rhetoric-backfire-on-the-republicans/532899/45 "2010-03-18T22:16:17Z")
Brain cancer, broken legs, and epilepsy are not “an ice cream,” a steak, or even a dozen roses. It’s beyond ridiculous to make that comparison. People WANT Blu-Ray, SUVs, fast food, and everything else they’re going to buy with those extra few dollars in tax savings. People NEED medical care, to the extent that anybody “needs” anything. It’s right below food, water, and shelter. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [March 18, 2010, 10:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-anti-healthcare-reform-rhetoric-backfire-on-the-republicans/532899/46 "2010-03-18T22:18:34Z")
> [@Oakminster](#): > > Well I’ll be damned. It’s not an exact match, but it is reasonably close. Objection withdrawn. Trust me, he didn’t fall for that trap. I can see it now: _Mr. Millionaire needs a $10M treatment in order to live. Does society pick up the tab because he only has $2M in net worth?_ ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [March 18, 2010, 10:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-anti-healthcare-reform-rhetoric-backfire-on-the-republicans/532899/47 "2010-03-18T22:20:29Z")
> [@Oakminster](#): > > Well I’ll be damned. It’s not an exact match, but it is reasonably close. Objection withdrawn. The context of this was an observation that the fundamental difference between the pro and anti-HCR sides is not economics, or the quality of the healthcare system, or even socialism, but rather the question of if society should allow people who cannot afford adequate medical care to die without it - in other words, if a right to some at least minimal health care exists. I put the question explicitly, but no one except **Bricker** answered. I’d like to hear answers from other conservatives - I suspect that all liberals would say this right did exist. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [March 18, 2010, 10:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-anti-healthcare-reform-rhetoric-backfire-on-the-republicans/532899/48 "2010-03-18T22:24:51Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > Trust me, he didn’t fall for that trap. I can see it now: _Mr. Millionaire needs a $10M treatment in order to live. Does society pick up the tab because he only has $2M in net worth?_ We can assume that he pays $1.9 million first. But in any case, where is the cut off? $1 million? $100 K? $1.95? 2X annual income, so rich people are worth more than poor people? ---
**Author:** ![Sitnam](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/6a8cbe/32.png) [@Sitnam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sitnam)\ **Post date:** [March 18, 2010, 10:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-anti-healthcare-reform-rhetoric-backfire-on-the-republicans/532899/49 "2010-03-18T22:28:35Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Look up the word hypocritical. > > Your wife’s cousin may well believe that bailouts are poor social policy, and argue against them. At the same time, if they are the law, he would be foolish to not take advantage of it. > > If you play Monopoly, think of the Free Parking rule. The actual rule, of course, is that nothing happens when you land on Free Parking; it’s merely a resting place. But many households have “house rules” that involve piling money in the center of the board, a lottery prize that’s won by the person to land on Free Parking. > > You may argue, before beginning a game, that Free parking money is an idiotic practice. But if you’re overruled, and playing, you certainly should take the money – why place yourself at a disadvantage? Yeah, I see what you mean but you can’t stand for your principles and pull a catch-as-catch-can at the same time. If you do it means your principles weren’t really that and political leverage was all it was about. Tim Pawlenty gov of Minnesota railed against Fed support for state budgets, it passed so then he wanted some of it saying fed taxes are Minnesota’s money anyway. Not hypocritical, but still BS. ---
**Author:** ![Oakminster](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/77aa72/32.png) [@Oakminster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Oakminster)\ **Post date:** [March 18, 2010, 10:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-anti-healthcare-reform-rhetoric-backfire-on-the-republicans/532899/50 "2010-03-18T22:41:04Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > The context of this was an observation that the fundamental difference between the pro and anti-HCR sides is not economics, or the quality of the healthcare system, or even socialism, but rather the question of if society should allow people who cannot afford adequate medical care to die without it - in other words, if a right to some at least minimal health care exists. I put the question explicitly, but no one except **Bricker** answered. I’d like to hear answers from other conservatives - I suspect that all liberals would say this right did exist. I don’t know of any explicit constitutional right to minimal health care. For that matter, what does minimal care mean? Is it a band-aid? What if you need stitches? What if you need a bionic heart? What if you need something that costs more than stitches, but less than a bionic heart? There is no legal right to adequate food. People go to sleep hungry every night in this country. Can we say minimal health care is a right when food is not? ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [March 18, 2010, 10:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-anti-healthcare-reform-rhetoric-backfire-on-the-republicans/532899/51 "2010-03-18T22:43:38Z")
Speaking from the conservative wing of the extreme left…I don’t know as how the discussion of whether or not health care is a “right” is productive. First off, there are no rights, we made that stuff all up. We even had to admit we were making it all up, we said “we hold the rights to be self-evident”…which is a polite way of saying, no, we can’t prove it, we doing it anyway. Nor do we pretend that we have identified all rights, we have certain rights permanently enshrined…to vote, to speak, to arm bears…but no one pretends that the Constitution is an absolute and complete compendium of all rights. We made them up in the first place, theres no reason we can’t add to the list if we choose. All nations are, by definition, collectives. We are all one, we are Americans. You cannot cross our borders and hurt our people, try it and you can tell it to the Marines, who will be in your capital city an few weeks. We do not permit foreigners to sell lead-poisoned toys to our children, because they are our children, they are Americans. Never mind whether or not we have a specific, stated right to health care. Ask the other question: do insurance companies have the right to operate as a criminal conspiracy, to the detriment of our citizens? Why do we permit an American corporation to do something that injures our people? And brothers and sisters, pals and gals, they do. Every day. (Example available in Pit thread, prospective rant stifled…) ---
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [March 18, 2010, 10:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-anti-healthcare-reform-rhetoric-backfire-on-the-republicans/532899/52 "2010-03-18T22:45:55Z")
> [@Oakminster](#): > > I don’t know of any explicit constitutional right to minimal health care. For that matter, what does minimal care mean? Is it a band-aid? What if you need stitches? What if you need a bionic heart? What if you need something that costs more than stitches, but less than a bionic heart? > > There is no legal right to adequate food. People go to sleep hungry every night in this country. Can we say minimal health care is a right when food is not? You don’t have an explicit constitutional right not to be murdered by your neighbor, either. What’s your point? ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [March 18, 2010, 10:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-anti-healthcare-reform-rhetoric-backfire-on-the-republicans/532899/53 "2010-03-18T22:46:04Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > We can assume that he pays $1.9 million first. And then what? We cough up the extra $8M? > [@](#): > > But in any case, where is the cut off? $1 million? $100 K? $1.95? 2X annual income, so rich people are worth more than poor people? I’m not weighing in on whether or not rich people are worth more than poor people. I’m offering that as an example of what Bricker could say he was talking about to counter the claim that he thinks poor people should die if they can’t afford health care. In fact, he might very well have been meaning that charities should step in and prevent “poor people” from dying, and not the gov’t. ---
**Author:** ![emacknight](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/3ec8ea/32.png) [@emacknight](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/emacknight)\ **Post date:** [March 18, 2010, 10:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-anti-healthcare-reform-rhetoric-backfire-on-the-republicans/532899/54 "2010-03-18T22:48:12Z")
> [@Eonwe](#): > > I’ve done nothing of the sort. I’ve decided that it’s the best choice I can make for my own benefit in the moment. I haven’t proven anything about the policy of ‘bailouts’ except that it was a policy that I found beneficial at one point. Exactly. This reminds me too much of the abortion debate. Person A when not pregnant: Abortion is wrong. Person A while pregnant: Abortion is my right. Person A after being pregnant: Abortion is wrong. You can substitute any number of factors in for pregnant and abortion such as poor and bailouts sick and UHC free parking and the free parking rule hungry and eating meat. The real challenge in life is to be able to stop making choices based on your “own benefit in the moment,” which to me is a very adolescent thing to do. It tends to lead to the type of reasoning where, “I’m healthy and employed so I don’t need UHC. Ergo, UHC is a bad policy choice.” Take a step back and consider what sort of choices you’d make in a variety of scenarios. You said yourself, “it was a policy that I found beneficial at one point.” So during that time it was a good policy. What you’re saying is that at time = t -1 you didn’t need the bailout, so it was a bad policy. Then you needed the bailout so it became a good policy. At time = t + 1 you didn’t need the bailout so it went back to being a bad policy. Do you not see the hypocrisy of what you’re saying? If it’s wrong/unhealthy to eat meat, that statement needs to stay true whether you’re hungry or not. Such that if there is a point where you either die of starvation or eat meat, I would expect a vegetarian to follow through with their beliefs and die. Otherwise you’re left with the opinion of “eating meat is wrong, unless you’re hungry and there’s nothing else in the fridge.” ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [March 18, 2010, 10:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-anti-healthcare-reform-rhetoric-backfire-on-the-republicans/532899/55 "2010-03-18T22:49:15Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > Speaking from the conservative wing of the extreme left…I don’t know as how the discussion of whether or not health care is a “right” is productive. > > First off, there are no rights, we made that stuff all up. We even had to admit we were making it all up, we said “we hold the rights to be self-evident”…which is a polite way of saying, no, we can’t prove it, we doing it anyway. > > Nor do we pretend that we have identified all rights, we have certain rights permanently enshrined…to vote, to speak, to arm bears…but no one pretends that the Constitution is an absolute and complete compendium of all rights. We made them up in the first place, theres no reason we can’t add to the list if we choose. > > All nations are, by definition, collectives. We are all one, we are Americans. You cannot cross our borders and hurt our people, try it and you can tell it to the Marines, who will be in your capital city an few weeks. We do not permit foreigners to sell lead-poisoned toys to our children, because they are our children, they are Americans. I can buy into that. > [@](#): > > Never mind whether or not we have a specific, stated right to health care. Ask the other question: do insurance companies have the right to operate as a criminal conspiracy, to the detriment of our citizens? Why do we permit an American corporation to do something that injures our people? And brothers and sisters, pals and gals, they do. Every day. > > (Example available in Pit thread, prospective rant stifled…) But just to be clear, we already don’t do that, and your Pit thread is proof. ---
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [March 18, 2010, 10:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-anti-healthcare-reform-rhetoric-backfire-on-the-republicans/532899/56 "2010-03-18T22:53:31Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > In fact, he might very well have been meaning that charities should step in and prevent “poor people” from dying, and not the gov’t. He might. I always read such an argument as “I know that charity won’t do the job, but if I pretend it will then I can avoid sounding like I’m wishing them death by the boxcarload.” ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [March 18, 2010, 10:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-anti-healthcare-reform-rhetoric-backfire-on-the-republicans/532899/57 "2010-03-18T22:54:04Z")
Oh, hell, I never really thought he mean it, anyway. He would no more stand idly by and let somebody die than I would. He was just having an attack of “tough guy”, Galt Fever, if you will. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [March 18, 2010, 10:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-anti-healthcare-reform-rhetoric-backfire-on-the-republicans/532899/58 "2010-03-18T22:56:16Z")
> [@begbert2](#): > > He might. I always read such an argument as “I know that charity won’t do the job, but if I pretend it will then I can avoid sounding like I’m wishing them death by the boxcarload.” Well, you’re wrong. ---
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [March 18, 2010, 10:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-anti-healthcare-reform-rhetoric-backfire-on-the-republicans/532899/59 "2010-03-18T22:58:51Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > Well, you’re be wrong. _Sure_ I’re would. ---
**Author:** ![sinjin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ebca7d/32.png) [@sinjin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sinjin)\ **Post date:** [March 18, 2010, 11:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-anti-healthcare-reform-rhetoric-backfire-on-the-republicans/532899/60 "2010-03-18T23:15:12Z")
> [@Oakminster](#): > > I’d like a cite for **Bricker** saying that. I don’t remember seeing him post anything close to “poor people should die if they can’t afford health care”. I’m too lazy to look it up now, but in a previous thread Bricker did state that if he lost his health insurance, which he sincerely didn’t think would ever happen, lucky him, he would just die because God wanted to see him sooner. I assume that means he thinks that all people, rich and poor, should take the same route as he. Maybe I’m wrong. Not sure what he thinks should happen to his family in that case. I guess they get kicked to the curb and die too. God’s will and all that. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-anti-healthcare-reform-rhetoric-backfire-on-the-republicans/532899.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-anti-healthcare-reform-rhetoric-backfire-on-the-republicans/532899.md?page=4)